Chet Ramey writes:
> The grammar will not interpret it that way. The token following the
> NAME after the `coproc' will be parsed as a reserved word if it meets
> the criteria for a reserved word -- that is, this is a place where
> reserved words will be recognized.
That should be documented si
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Chet Ramey writes:
>
>> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
>>> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
>>> instead of :
>>> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>>>
>>> the documentation would be a little clearer wit
Chet Ramey writes:
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
>> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
>> instead of :
>> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>>
>> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like:
>>
>> coproc
Pierre Gaston wrote:
> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
> instead of :
> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>
> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like:
>
> coproc simple-command [redirections]
>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
> instead of :
> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>
> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like:
>
> copro
